2014-03 (April 7,
2014)Disclosure/Disqualification; Former Law
FirmRules 1.2, 2.4 & 2.11
Issue: Does a Judicial Official have a duty
to recuse or to disclose his or her relationship
with a former partner or former law firm when
members of a newly merged law firm (comprised of
members of the former law firm) appear before the
Judicial Official?Additional Facts: When a Judicial
Official and his or her former law partner ceased
practicing law together, the partner became a
partner at a midsized law firm. The Judicial
Official received compensation from that firm for a
few years as a part of the transaction, but has not
received any compensation for at least five years.
In addition to maintaining a close relationship with
the Judicial Official’s former partner, the Judicial
Official occasionally socializes with one of the
partners of the midsized firm. It is the Judicial
Official’s practice to recuse himself or herself
whenever an attorney from the midsized firm appears
before the Judicial Official.
The midsized law firm subsequently merged with a
large law firm. Due to their personal relationships,
the Judicial Official will continue to recuse
himself or herself whenever the former partner or a
few of the partners from the midsized firm appear
before the Judicial Official. The Judicial Official
inquires whether there is a duty to recuse or
disclose when members of the newly merged law firm
appear before the Judicial Official.
Response: Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
states that a judge “shall act at all times in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the
judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety. The test for appearance
of impropriety is whether the conduct would create
in reasonable minds a perception that the judge
violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that
reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty,
impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a
judge.” Rule 2.4
of the Code addresses the importance of an
independent judiciary and states, in subsection (b),
that “[a] judge shall not permit family, social,
political, financial, or other interests or
relationships to influence the judge’s judicial
conduct or judgment.” Subsection (c) of Rule 2.4
states that “[a] judge shall not convey or permit
others to convey the impression that any person or
organization is in a position to influence the
judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.”

Rule
2.11 (a) states, in relevant part, that a judge
shall disqualify himself or herself in any
proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might
reasonably be questioned including, but not limited
to, certain specified circumstances. One such
circumstance is if the judge has a personal bias or
prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer.
Comment (1) to Rule 2.11 states that under this
Rule, “a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s
impartiality might reasonably be questioned,
regardless of whether any of the specific provisions
of subsections (a)(1) through (5) apply.”Based on the facts presented
and consistent with Rules 1.2, 2.4 (b) & (c) and
2.11 (a), the Committee unanimously determined that
the Judicial Official does not have a duty to
automatically disqualify himself or herself when
members of the newly merged large law firm appear
before the Judicial Official, provided the Judicial
Official does not believe that he or she has any
personal bias (favorable or unfavorable) involving
the new law firm. The Judicial Official does,
however, have a duty to disclose his or her personal
relationships with his or her former partner and the
attorneys from the midsized firm. Thereafter, if a
motion to disqualify is filed, the Judicial Official
must exercise his or her discretion in deciding the
motion based upon the information provided in the
motion and the accompanying affidavit, as provided
for in Connecticut Practice Book § 1-23, as well as
the particular circumstances of the case. In reaching its
decision, the Committee took into account its prior
opinions in
JE 2008-21 (a Judicial Official, who served as a
part-time corporation counsel, need not recuse
himself when former municipal employer is a party or
complaining witness. Judicial Official must,
however, disclose relationship for a reasonable
period of time, which is not less than two years);
JE 2010-04 (a Judicial Official who served as an
AAG approximately 15 years ago need not recuse or
disclose);
JE 2010-25 (a Judicial Official does not have an
affirmative obligation to disclose prior
professional relationships that existed more than 20
years ago); and
JE 2011-06 (a Judicial Official, who has a close
personal relationship with the current Attorney
General, does not need to disqualify him/herself
when a member of the Attorney General’s office
appears before the Judicial Official, but has a duty
to disclose his or her personal relationship to
parties and their counsel).